Anyone can say that “There are some very exciting cars on the way and some business concepts that could change not just personal transport but the whole electricity sector.”

But, where is the proof? The Mitsubishi new release does about 160 kilometres on a charge. Whacko! How useful in a country the size of Australia.

“Imagine for example not charging your car overnight, but pulling into a “battery change station” where a machine simply takes out your battery pack and replaces it with a fully charged one…”

The whole electric car waffle is based on ‘imagination’. Nobody has even come up with an alternative to ‘dirty’ coal yet to generate all this wonderful electricity; and we’ve been told by the dills in Canberra that the ONLY alternative, nuclear, will not be used in Australia.

Useful electric cars, like all the you beaut imaginings and visions are like wind power and the wind of pseudo scientist: rubbish

Bout freakin time. If we had a good honest government, when the electric car gets introduced (sooner than later), they would provide free PV/grid-fed recharge stations, like in Sweden (just plug your car into a charger). The infrastructure would be vastly cheaper and easier than oil because you don't need so much more safety measures, employees on ALL of them, etc.

But as always, the progress of the Nordic countries will go very much unrealized down under- including by lots of environmentalists.

But I'm personally getting sick of choosing between getting gouged for petrol money, paying an arm and a leg (As well as a few extra hours wasted) for multiple public transports, or being told to ride a bike the odd 40km across Sydney to my destination.

Until we are producing energy from clean, renewable sources, electric cars are not creating enough of an impact to reduce pollution.

My next car will be a late model 4-cyclinder converted to gas. Besides my home car park is nowhere near a power-outlet and LPG conversions are well-established and Australia has excellent reserves - unless we sell it all to the Chinese, which brings on another headache and the passion for a holistic approach to transitioning to renewable technology instead of the piecemeal offerings from all side of politics.

A good article. Adelaide is looking to put chargers in car parks and in the street. The new lithium batteries are a major break through. They pack a punch and last a life time. The latest models will do 400 kms per charge. It's a start.

Julian - sorry mate but its all of a load of nonsense. Electric cars are not cheaper than their petrol equivalents - they are far more expensive and probably more polluting. Maybe they are cheaper to refuel but they have to be refuelled everyday, and because they are much more expensive to start with the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) is horrendous. As for pollution, battery packs have to be produced and recycled (although that is less of a problem with the latest models). But the main problem is that they draw power from a network that is still fossil fuelled, and that is not going to change. Wind is all but useless as a substitute. All electric cars do is transfer pollution from the city to the power stations. If we used hydro power then there would be an advantages, but that's only in Tasmania.
As for plugging electric cars en-masse into the power network, network managers have kittens over that one. Sorry, but its straight nonsense.

Certainly is nonsense, Curmudgeon. Too many people on OLO have their heads in their armpits. One of them suggests that Adelaide is going to strew recharging points all over Adelaide. I haven't heard that one, even among the wild promises we are hearing prior to going to the polls this Saturday.

I wouldn't care if an electric car cost me an extra 10%, if it means that the oil producing countries don't have us by the short and curlies.
Electricity can be produced by many methods and that means there will be heaps of competition which means stability of supply and price.
I may even put up PV and a windmill just to charge my own electric car.

There is all the electricity needed to recharge electric cars at
night but most of it is wasted heating water at a reduced price.
In Australia,heating water with electricity,madness.
In Australia electric clothes dryers ,stupid.
When the cars use the electricity at night the electricity price will go up then solar will heat water and dry clothes.
160 kilometers per charge not enough twice a year,rent a charger trailer with a big petrol tank.1000 kilometers per refill is easy.

What silly articles we get from the ratbag activists. If you've got any money. you've better be careful what accountant you use, if KPMG are stupid enough to use him as an advisor, avoid them. I suppose they only use him to buy the Greenpease A/c.

Electric cars will be OK for many of us, if we ramp up enough generating capacity, but with rampant greenies trying to stop anything useful being built, that's unlikely.

I suppose our government will buy some of these, using our tax dollars to buy some greenie vote, & try to save the earth around Canberra. Hell, even if you thought the earth was worth saving, surely Canberra would be the last place you would bother with.

Little Brother, it doesn't work like that mate. You'll find that at night, when most cars are at home, "the sun dont shine, & 70% of the time the wind dont blow nither".

It is all so silly. Get a hybrid, Why? A diesel will burn 35% less fuel, without all the extra cr4p to build, & carry.

Severin, yes gas is cleaner, & we've got plenty, but you do have to burn a lot of it, to get any where.

If you really want to go green, get an old car. It will provide many more jobs, restoring it, & use much less materials, than building a new one, & still cost less. What's more, all the emissions produced building it are long paid for. If you buy a new one, even with reduced fuel usage, it will be 15 years or more before it's earned back all those building emissions with fuel savings.

My 1980 sports car burns only 200 litres more fuel in my average 14000Km a year, than a new little hatch, looks good, drives great, & I can find the bl00dy thing in a car park, something my wife has trouble with, with her new one. Severin, I could convert it to gas, just as easily as a new one.

Why on earth would I want any new car.

Not a lot of contructive stuff coming out here. EV's will cost about $40K initially. There's no comparison between petrol cars and EV's re emissions. It's a 90 percent cut in emissions. True, not much use for country drivers as yet and probably a long way off before a mass release. But they're coming.

Cheryl - its not a 90 per cent cut in emissions. There is no saving at all. The emissions are just transferred to the fossil fule plant that generates the electricity. EVs are a straight waste of time and money.

My understanding is that evs would have lower ghg emissions than petrol even if they were powered solely by coal fired power stations.

http://commontragedies.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/coal-fired-car/

But the ev wont progress without a good battery to power it. The author would do better so speculate on the parameters that might turn the tide. Kilowatts per kilogram and dollars per kilowatt of storage is what will change things.

Sorry Fester, but your graph is either way out of date, or is just propaganda.

There are more than a few popular cars which use quite a bit less fuel than the hybrids, & a number of diesels which burn less than half the fuel used by the hybrids.

To get a true comparison, you will first have to reduce youe fuel consumption of the internal combustion car to that of the hybrid, or less.

Your graph does not tell us what it means. We have no idea what milages they represent. Figures I have seen suggest that a modern economical petrol car will travel over 150,000Km, before the fuel emission equal production emissions. With modern diesels it's more like 200,000Km.

On the other hand, the production emissions for your electric car should be no more than the hybrid, & with decent volume, should be able to match the petrol car, in time.

As someone who believes CO2 is excellent plant food, emissions don't worry me. However I believe electric cars will replace petrol, for most city usage, because they make more sense, even if hydrocarbon fuels don't run aut any time soon.

Is it just me or am I detecting a kneejerk reaction of some bristling against the idea of electric cars based on links to the hippy greeny cause? It's just that the tone seems to be outright hostile to the idea- ANYTHING but that- even to spend the money trying to fix up an old car is a better alternative from some.

It's not exactly rocket science- if they can run on electricity alone- and they can be recharged via a cable, then obviously the electricity can come from absolutely anywhere- you could even stick a PV or wind turbine out in the middle of nowhere with a storage cell for the energy- meaning the only cost was in manufacturing it, trucking it out and sticking it in the ground.

It's harder to get a monopoly on- unlike petrol (like Little Brother pointed out), and would require a lot less arable land (and possible alteration of food prices on the market) that ethanol would need.
And ultimately, I like the convenience of a car instead of letting those snotty feel-good tossers force me onto public transport if there are greener car alternatives- I thought that was a good thing?
Not to mention its the source that is least possible to make an industry out of- meaning it will be infrastructure closest to a government service.

King Hazza I think it's just the "miracle fix is almost here" babbling gushes we get from the eco types that irritates many people on OLO.

Personally I'm still waiting for all the new breakthroughs and green jobs we all hear about, where are they? We've been threatened with them for years, not the government bat rubbish, I mean real advances we "will lead the world in!" as they usually say.

It would be great to have alternatives, but cheer leading is not going to do it.

I'd prefer to see all the money being p*ssed away on climate science going into energy development and nuclear power development.

Let's face it, if the world had continued to develop nuclear power generation instead of being derailed by activists, then they would have continued to evolve, the eco types have put us in this position of relying on fossil fuels, I feel no inclination to be charitable to their wailing.

Little Brother says - "Electricity can be produced by many methods and that means there will be heaps of competition which means stability of supply and price." Sorry, really cannot agree with that, you can't just go into competition with state regulated industries because you want to - also, we have standards, or people will start to die who try to produce electricity, it's not like planting flowers mate.

If I were you, I wouldn't be rushing to buy an EV until you've read this article...

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Time-to-fill-the-gas-pipe-pd20100318-3MRS7?OpenDocument&src=kgb

It starts by saying....... "For the past 18 months, while we have been debating climate change and emissions trading, we have been largely ignoring the fact that with population and industrial growth Australia is rapidly losing its ability to supply reliable power."

And..... "But unless we take action now Australia is about to enter an era where electricity supply will be much less reliable. We have received an alert from the UK where, like Australia, the country moved away from the traditional model of one government supplier."

This article comes as no surprise to those who follow such things. Australia's electricity grid is slowly dying through neglect. Apparently, shareholders of major power companies are more important than adding infrastructure to a grid that cannot hope to keep up with the explosion in population of this country. Business as usual won't go on for much longer.

Hasbeen

Appreciate your comments on fuel economic cars. What say you about a 1986 Mazda 323 fuel injected? Convert to LPG? Restore? Of go for converting a later model car. The Mazda really is getting a old in all directions - seats, electrical system, some rust. Little engine is still torquey though and runs very clean.

Have to disagree with you regards CO2 - too much of a good thing is bad and does acidify oceans, impact on ecosystems. Just think of the caves carved out simply by the action of carbonic acid, then consider impact where PPM increase into conditions beyond which humans and our fellow animals have been accustomed to. While levels have indeed been higher in the past, the types of animals in existence then could cope with the higher levels - humans weren't around then. Something for you to consider, Hasbeen.

As I will consider advice from you regarding economic cars.

:-)

So, Hashi Mitsumoto san, as president of one of the largest motor car manufacturers in the world, how will electric cars benefit the world?

A) We will sell more cars and get better margins because the eco-market is willing to pay a premium.

Q) But surely we will benefit from lowering carbon emissions?

A) Of course, although production and disposal carbon intensity of these technologies is much higher, we can point to the fact that they are clean, electrically powered.

Q) Where do we get the electricity from to recharge them?

A) Customers will have wind and solar power generation at home, so providing they only do 160kms round trip they can get home for a recharge. This is not a problem as these customers will only represent 0.5% of users, the rest will plug into the local power station where will we be operating on clean coal by about 2035.

Q) So who do you see as your target market?

A) Well the whole of California for a start. After that we can sell these to anyone who fears the destruction of the planet by next month (that rolls over to “next month” at the end of each month). We have also identified eco-snobs, many journalists and any anyone who buys the sizzle rather than the sausage.

Q) Is the life span of these vehicles longer than those burning fossil fuels?

A) Just so, these cars are limited to low mileage for several reasons, they don’t go far enough on a round trip and there is no network of either recharge poles or battery swap facilities. It’s a bit like leaving home with the “reserve tank” light on whilst knowing there is nowhere to fill up.

Q) Does this threaten our coal industry?

A) No, as cars switch from petrol to electric, coal powered electricity will increase proportionally.

For the first time I got more “motoring” laughs from Paul Gilding than Jeremy Clarkson.

P.S. Paul. My copper, mining and lithium stocks are soaring, Many thanks.

Strewth! Here we go again the so called 'Tokenists' V 'Luddites/ Corporatists' or some such counter productive name pigeon holed, fixated mind sets. More heat than Light.
So long as we keep thinking inside the box we'll get the inside the box limited answers.
All the technology being spoken about is that which serves current power (elitist) paradigms. i.e. how do we maximise what exists.
Not what is the best solution*S* (Plural)

The 'Luddite/ Corporatists' are *currently* correct the current technology will by and large will simply move the source of pollution and waste.

It is the dominance of this mind set that has us throw billions of $? 'Clean' (sic) coal, Clean safe(sic) Nukes! Both sources are sunset technologies based on finite sources, in effect , move the problem not fix it. The same claim made against the so called 'tokenists'

Why? Conservatism (literal) "lets not up set the status quo".

Meanwhile we ignore other technologies, other (part?) solutions.

We're still thinking in industrial exploitism mentality (the one that arguable got us into this mess). The one that has the terminal gene built into it.
A society built around limited resources and the elitist self-serving notion big is always (sic) best, for what or whom?
We're looking for a big magic bullet solution that, Big business can easily exploit for profit.

As I have said many times the answer clearly lies in devolution and therefore a range of solutions. Instead a compromise for everyone i.e. Specific local logical solutions.

Lets move on, acknowledge the 'real terminal costs' of our society and plan/minimise them where possible. Look at the renewable assets available, including people and act accordingly.
There should be ONE beneficiary ….people. Business is there to serve people not the other way around .

Severin, unless you can do your own pannel work, you need to start with a sound structure, no rust. If it has good paint, that's a plus.

This is not a plan for a "cheep" car, but can be good value.

I bought 2 1980 model cars for a total of $1,300. One was rust free, but had mechanical bits missing. The other was all there, & working OK, but so rusty I was not game to jack it up. 4 months of gentle work, say 8/10 days for a professional I had one rebuilt car, ready for the painter.

After painting I had a lovely car, worth about $5,000 on the market, owing me about $7,000. It is a much nicer car than I could buy new for less than $20,000, & virtually no new emissions had been created.

8 years & 65,000 Km later, I have spent another $1,400 on reupholstering the thing, & have recently refused $11,000 for the car.

Oh, the small, economical [6.3L/100Km] car we bought for my wife, 4 years ago, for $22,000, is now worth, you guessed it, $11,000, & has yet to recoup the emissions generated in it's production.

Why did I not do the same, & restore a nice old car for her, you ask. Well, mainly because I'm a coward. I could not have stood the nagging I would have got if/when the thing inevitably broke down.

Restored car breakdown, my fault, new car breakdown, Mazda's fault. No contest.

Hasbeen

Not too much rust in the body of the Mazda - paint job in great need of restoration. I think your points about the environmental/non-renewable energy that is wasted in production of new cars is very valid. There is no need to rush into electric cars until we have a more supportive infrastructure.

Any more than we need to rush investment into setting up nuclear plants when we could use the same monies for investment into clean renewable technologies.

Back to personal issue, I think I just want a change of car. Will not buy a new one, for previously stated reasons as above, but still think converting a late model to LPG a good compromise.

BTW - did you give any thought to the "too much CO2" issue? It is happening, and we may or may not be able to adapt to climate alteration - I really have no idea. But then I didn't know my home was going to be hit by giant hail-stones a couple of weeks ago - however I do have insurance. Never hurts to be prepared

rpg wrote:
"Personally I'm still waiting for all the new breakthroughs and green jobs we all hear about, where are they?"

In China where else? Does anyone here truly believe all this supposed new green tech was going to be done here?

"President Obama(or comrade KRudd) has often spoken about creating clean-energy jobs in the United States(Australia). But China has shown the political will to do so, said Mr. Pinto, 49, who is also Applied Materials' executive vice president for solar systems and flat-panel displays."

http://finance.yahoo.com/careers-work/article/109107/china-drawing-high-tech-research-from-us%3B_ylt%3DAudt50lwJ7CtOZurIkgfMDK7YWsA%3B_ylu%3DX3oDMTE1Z2U5YzhxBHBvcwM2BHNlYwN0b3BTdG9yaWVzBHNsawNtb3JldXN0ZWNoY28-?sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=

Back on topic:
Electric cars are just feel good devices, they actually solve no problems and may even create more.
We need to secure a lasting, efficient, sustainable energy system before electric cars will make any difference. This tech will take decades against the constant resistance of fossil fuel companies and governments really wanting to maintain the status quo.

Rpg

'Miracle' answer? They're in use in Europe and the USA already.

Where are these green industries?
China, Europe and to some extent the USA.

Also,
Why is research being P-ssed away if it were researching renewables as opposed to nuclear? Nuclear isn't exactly a cheaper alternative- Every Nuclear plant needs to be custom-designed with considerable safeguards established, a constant feed of resources and personale; PV panels and wind turbines could be mass produced in a factory.

As for the comment about 'or people will start to die who try to produce electricity, it's not like planting flowers mate.';
Care to elaborate?

Out of date, Hasbeen? Here is a link to another article showing a comparison of CO2 emissions:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=3536

Substantially lower than gasoline, slightly higher than diesel, but less than the two combined. I agree with you that the ev is pointless today. But there is good reason to think that things will change, as the internal combustion engine and coal generated electricity are mature technologies, whereas batteries, renewables and nuclear are developing and have substantial potential. Even if renewables dont challenge coal in the next decade, it is highly likely that fourth generation nuclear reactors will be built, delivering cheaper and cleaner electricity than coal. And the research into batteries currently suggests that much higher storage density and service life is possible.

At over $1000 per KWh of storage for todays ev batterys, it is unsurprising not to see a market. But to think that things wont change would be to believe that the supporting technologies will not evolve. That would be a unique achievement in the history of human endeavour. It is a question of "When", not "If".

Sorry fester, that link is not all that convincing either.

If that lot had something to crow about, we'd all hear it, without bothering to turn the TV on. My guess, with such a vague report, is they had to test a 250Kw petrol, against a 100Kw diesel, against a 10Kw electric, to get their desired result.

They get away with this stuff, because our journalists are so incompetent. They would do better, long term, if they were truthful.

Unfortunately, I also believe we have reached a plateau with battery development right now. There has been almost as much money thrown at battery development as has been thrown at AGW in recent years. It will come, but the next breakthrough could be decades.

They did not report gas, as a vehical fuel, as distinct from a power generation fuel. That's got to be a bit suspicious, too. Severin is probably right, & gas is the most emission free, as well as cheepest currently available fuel, when used in the car, not the power house.

One of the local youngsters has stuck an electric motor, & a dozen or so led acid batteries in a Hilux ute, he uses for work. It's no hot rod, but gives him about 150 useful kilometres a day, before it gets a bit slow. He reckons the economy is great. His father pays the electricity bill.

I have another of my old cars, almost finished, & I'm thinking of doing something similar. I probably don't do enough Kms to make it pay, battery replacement would probably run about $400 per year, but it should be interesting, & it suits the image, the locals think i'm a nut, all ready.

khazza and rawmustard - the point about where are these green jobs is that was/is the justification for jobs being lost here in the fossil fuel energy and petroleum industries. The mantra was that it was OK that coal mining and other jobs would go, because folks would get jobs in the GI .. so where are they? China you both say, well hang on, that's not going to pay workers mortgages here.

Why are we accepting this?

Why are all your eco warriors accepting jobs being exported? We're not the clever country after all? All those skeptics who said the jobs would not appear here, but overseas were correct .. again!

khazza, I said "I'd prefer to see all the money being p*ssed away on climate science going into energy development and nuclear power development." Who said nuclear is cheaper to build? You did and I wonder why that is relevant, the money being p*issed away on CS could be better used, is what I said. Nuclear is RELIABLE, that's the point, all these hobby renewables are useless as they cannot give consistent return. Don't be against nuclear to be fashionable, be against it if you think it is not feasible .. which are you?

People thought installing insulation was easy, 4 people now have died .. electricity, it's not trivial to deal with and this will get completely out of control as it becomes more common. Batteries require BIG current, that's what kills, and with the cavalier attitude to the trade of between danger and being green, I can see as with the government's insulation scheme, being green is more important than good planning and infrastructure.

It may not turn out to be that way, but when I see throw away lines, like oh there'll be lot's of competition I wonder at people's line of thought. It's early days in the whole renewables development, but there's a reason we insist on standards when dealing with electricity. Homes have water, and if they have high current outlets for charging big batteries, I can just see problems coming.

Rpg its pretty straight forward.
-The jobs that would be lost I should add are ones that WE, the consumers are paying for. I personally welcome any attempt to help expand my options to other forms of energy generation.
-The jobs going overseas is the kicker- the government could easily fund the establishment of renewable energy reactors- or factories to manufacture green cars or power generators, just as easily as they would have sent the money to the coal industry or bailed out our car manufacturers without any obligation to stay in the country.
-PV panels and vertical turbines are reliable too- why wouldn't they be?
They don't even need full-time employees to ensure they keep generating power.
-And I think you should be a little more open-minded. Just because someone would sooner choose a renewable over nuclear it does not mean they're some trendy. It's simply more expensive to establish and maintain, and I personally don't want to have to pay for its continuous power input instead of a one-off purchase of a renewable generator.
-So people have died because of Rudd's dud INSULATION scheme- not a PV/turbine device?
But even with the point of attaching electrical devices to my house- surely that's my choice, as much as it would be to attach an aircon device, fireplace, etc?

Sounds like a fun project, Hasbeen. It reminded me of this site giving instructions for converting a motorcycle:

http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-build-a-72Volt-electric-motorcycle/

You are probably right about the ghg emissions, but as someone who doesn't think much of AGW, surely cost per kilometre is the clincher? With power consumption ranging from 16 to 33 kwh per 100 km for this ev,

http://withouthotair.blogspot.com/2008/07/performance-data-for-gwiz-in-london.html

you are looking at energy costs of from three to five dollars per 100 km. Town gas would probably be cheaper than this at two to three dollars per 100 km, but unfortunately Kevin is more interested in broadband than gas mains, so not everyone has this option.

I certainly see a role for electric cars and I'll think they will
become pretty popular, mainly in the cities.

For a start they will help reduce the massive smog that exists
in many Asian, European and US cities.

Secondly, they will assit to remove the OPEC strangehold, which
our present transport depends on. In other words, with less demand,
less likelyhood of 300$ oil in the near future.

The way I understand it, the idea is to use baseload power,
already produced each night but not used, by our present electricity
generation system.

A new energy game changer called shale gas is also coming into play.
Suddenly the US has gone from a gas importer, to a gas exporter,
due to new technology to extract huge volumes of shale gas. So the
thinking is that more power stations will be driven by shale gas
and CSG, rather then coal, as it halves the CO2 problem.

Surveys done in the US showed that most people only travel around
40-50km a day with their cars, so electric vehicles will be ideal
for them. For longer distances, some vehicles will be equipped with
a small conventional engine, which keeps the batteries charged when
required.

Places like Google are already covering the rooves of their carparks
with solar cells, so that batteries can charge whilst people are
at work.

So don't write off EV just yet, they will most certainly play a role
in our transport system. 2c a km for electricity rather then 15c
a km for petrol, will win over many consumers.

Yabby

Hasbeen is correct in pointing out that cng is currently the best option, both in terms of cost and emissions. The downside is that there is little infrastructure, whereas electricity is ubiquitous. Even if you have town gas, you still have to buy the compressor and have the car converted. And with a range of under 300 km and a filling time of 10 hours, the vehicle would be tied to home.

http://www.gasfill.com/

Hazza, that is absolutely wrong.

Not only are we the consumers not paying for coal jobs, with out them, & the iron ore, & alumina jobs you would not have a computer, or a washing machine, or a lot of other things.

Without the mining industry we would not have the foreign exchange to pay for our imports.

It's all well & good, taking in each others washing, in our cities while mining pays for the soap, water & power infrastructure that make it all possible, but you are just kidding yourself if you think a green [no mining no agriculture] Oz would be anything but a disaster for most.

In the 60s, I supplied tech support to 150 companies using our plastics to manufacture things like TVs, radios, washing machines Fridges, vacume cleaners, & a host of other things. Those companies, & their jobs, are long gone. The whole damn lot is now imported.

I find it laughable that it's mostly the people living in the cities, the most polluting of life styles, that want to shut down the things that make their life style possible.

khazza, you're one of those people who cannot quote or work in context - So people have died because of Rudd's dud INSULATION scheme- not a PV/turbine device?"

I did not mention a PV/turbine device, much more basic than that, fools with electricity.

If we can't deal with an insulation scheme in large numbers, which incidentally ELECTROCUTED 4 kids, I suspect we'll have similar issues when there is a big rollout of electric cars, whatever method is used.

"And I think you should be a little more open-minded. Just because someone would sooner choose a renewable over nuclear it does not mean they're some trendy. It's simply more expensive to establish and maintain, and I personally don't want to have to pay for its continuous power input instead of a one-off purchase of a renewable generator."

Energy fashion, wait till you need base load generation because a hospital is abut to fail - then we'll see how your hobby renewables stand up.

Nuc has its issues right now for the reasons I explained already, but compared to coal (CO2) renewables, no reliability - it is the BEST current choice.

But please do waffle on about renewables and their low cost, we have the greatest power of our age being ignored because of fashion .. "oooh nuclear is uncool and it might cost us" Waiting for renewables to become reliable will cost way more than getting on with nuclear power NOW!.

No problem, I'll make sure I always live where eco idiots are not in control.

Fester, I guess alot will depend on how Govts change the tax structure.
The thing is, if alot switch to electric cars and cng
cars, it will dramatically effect Govt revenue, so they will claw
it back with taxes, in one form or another.

Personally I think that we will see lots of solutions to transport
energy, rather then one magic pill.

In some countries for instance, they have alot of hydro electric
energy, or nuclear energy. At that point, electric cars would
make sense. The URL that you quoted was from Britain. Given the
huge taxes on petrol there, installing a compressor would seemingly
make lots of sense for instance, for businesses converting their
delivery vans.

For the US, it seems that shale gas will be a real game changer.
They don't just use diesel for trucks, but also to heat tens of
millions of homes too. Some people are claiming that alot of the
truck transport fleet could be converted to shale gas, in total
it means that the US import bill for fossil fuels could halve.
Energy security is a big issue for the US,as is paying the bill.

So I think we will see it all. Electric, gas, petrol and diesel
transport, depending on each individual situation and cost.

Bazz might well be wrong, the world as we know it is not going
to end anytime soon.

Even in Australia, they are talking about huge extra reserves of
available energy, in places like the Cooper Basin, due to the
new technology of releasing shale gas.

Too right about your last two posts Yabby:

Hasbeen- I'm not sure if you're deliberately pretending you're missing the point or not- if we pay for electricity from the grid, we're paying for the coal jobs ourselves- if we stopped, then it would leave the coal industry to only sell coal to other countries willing to pay for it (eg those lacking much sunlight/wind to warrant other fuels) and to steel-makers.
It's really not that hard to grasp.
But personally, I do not accept the earlier implied point on this thread that I must help sustain an industry because they would lose jobs having an actual competitor- hence my post.

Same to you RPG- those are terribly disingenious implications;

Not even touching the 'risk' of electrocution by an electric car or PV panel- especially considering said 'risks' already exist in much more immediate products- power sockets, toasters- and, you know, the batteries of petrol-powered cars).

And nice try attempting to extend the demand for green cars and PV panels to a binary 'what-if-all-society-abandoned-baseload-power' scenario- did I ever actually say I wanted that?

No Hazza, it's you missing the point. When you pay for your electricity, you are paying for the most cost effective electricity available in most places in Oz.

If on the other hand we were silly enough to go in for boutique power, in the form of wind or PV, then you will be paying for coal jobs.

That will be to mine the coal, to send to China, so they can use the cheep efficient power, to make useless wind turbines, or not much better PV panels, to sell to the twits in Oz. You will then pay through the nose for any power they get out of all that gear.

Did you know that there are now 14,000 abandoned comercial wind generators in California. Once the subsidises run out, it's cheeper to walk away from them, than keep them running.

What a great source of power they are!

Have you ever lived with this stuff. It would be a joke, if it weren't so damn infuriating. If we could just make all the dills who push for this rubbish, depend on it for six months, there would be no more arguments.

Hasbeen, let's recount:
You can't pretend that by paying the electricity provider I am in notfact paying the coal industry for its product- therefore, the coal industries jobs are therefore being held at my expense.
And CHEAP? Not according to my last power bill!
Either which way you look at it, it costs much more to keep a coal plant going than a PV panel or turbine (original construction of multuiple mechanized parts, crew quarters, purchasing coal as FUEL, constantly trucking it about vs building the machine once and trucking it once).

Now, your argument about China slapping an extreme pricetag because they can (not unlike our current electricity providers) would be easily sidelined by an Australian company starting to build them (possibly a nationally-owned company)- or even by trading with the many other countries that produce solar panels or other urban energy-generating devices- thus creating either a non-profit public industry, or else some competition.

And the turbines in california? Would they be the same miniature vertical being used in Amsterdam which individually handle a third of each small apartment's power requirements?
I have a feeling you are referring to the large propeller arrays that dot the countrysides- but feel free to correct me with specifics.

Wow, can't give you many marks for common sense Hazza, but you sure get top marks for bravery.

Having seen the bureaucrats manage to burn down 178 houses, with such a simple thing as insulation, you now want to let them run a factory.

Then, not just any factory, but one building things that generate power, the very thing that got them into trouble with the insulation project. My god man, you do like living dangerously.

Fortunately the wind power thing would be long abandoned before those twits could get any factory built, let alone up & running, so I suppose we are safe enough.

Still a good plot for a horror movie. I can see it now, as power surges throw bolts of lightning from the transmition lines, cooking the heroine's family, along with half a city. Then we could have huge propellers comming off, rolling down the highway, chopping up cars, oh, & lots of blood. I think this thing has legs, you've missed your calling mate.

Hasbeen, if the best you can do is try to conjure up a spooky horror movie scenario about green appliances falling into a chain-reaction of mass death and destruction (which for some odd reason, isn't a problem with all of the other electrical appliances we use to be of social concern), then I think we're done here.

As for the 'competence' of private enterprise vs public-owned entities- ask Telstra and Sydney Airport.

Otherwise, keep trying.

How many houses has Sydney airport burned down exactly mate?

I don't even remember Telstra getting too many, do you? Let me know.

Telstra is a good example of state industry though. After privitisation, they got rid of 60% of the state "wokers", & were then overmanned only 30%.

Government built wind turbines, even the Chineese would not be able to afford to buy them.

Notice the rail unions? They don't like Anna, & her sell off plan. They know damn well that more than half of them will go, to get some efficency in rail.

Not that I mind too much with a bit of overmanning. A mate of mine built a full racing motor bike in the railway workshops. From drawings, through casting, & machining, right up to racing.

Well the railways had to be good for something, didn't they.

continuing with the 'but they get burn down lol' line still? (unless of course Sydney airport and Telstra had a history of burning down houses BEFORE privatization)

Simple binary question- have Sydney airport and Telstra improved or worsened in terms of input (cost) and output (services) post privatization?

Simple question, feel free to shout out your answer.